Patsquatch at small forward

I'm very surprised there is so much opposition to this idea. Playing Patterson at the 3 could only help. If we end up drafting a big with a jump shot I could see this working beautifully. Patterson posting up on his defender would be a mismatch,+ it would help spread the floor and it would limit the other teams shot blocking.

 

This was my thought as well. A lot of people forget that during the first championship run, Horry was actually our starting small forward. It was nice having 2 6'10" guys along with Hakeem out there. Horrys ability to guard the 3 at his size was pretty amazing. It also helped that he could hit the 3 and stretch the floor. As much as I'd love to see this again, I wouldn't hold my breath. I wouldn't mind giving it a shot for stretches like you say, but I don't think it would work. I hate to say it, but we need to do what we can to move Scola and open up those minutes for Patterson at the 4.

Pugs

 

We have a PF with a jump shot. His name is Patterson. I don't the jump shooting PFs in this draft. Which one do you think would be better than Pat?

 

He said "a big with a jump shot". I think he was talking about Kanter.

 

Patterson has no business playing consistent minutes at the SF spot. He can give you spot minutes here and there when the match up calls for it (Artest/Melo), but generally he won't be able to effectively guard most SFs due to their quickness.

 

I don't understand the Chuck Hayes infatuation. He's a great role player, great locker room leader, has worked hard and improved his game. But if Patterson is a guy you need to get on the floor, and who have to put Hayes on the bench to do so, you do it. Chuck will never be more than he is... which is uniquely good enough to stand out on an average team at best, but not good enough to get more than spot (+/-15) minutes on a contending team, if that.

That said, this team has the pieces it has. And getting Chuck, Scola and Patterson out there at the same time could be useful for very short stretches.

Still, it's not 100% clear to me they resign Chuck - not because of lack of want to, but because he might be able to get a better offer from another team that realistically the Rockets shouldn't match.

 

I believe your question would be better worded more like "can you get away with having PP playing the 3". Similar to how can Aaron Brooks get away with playing the 2-guard, or Amare getting away with playing center.

There were indeed times when the NBA favored going big. And there were a lot of teams going with 3 big men for physical play. But that era has passed. These days, it's usually the other way around. You have power forwards masquerading as centers. You have teams playing more or less 3-guard lineups. You have teams with small 2-guards. Also, you generally have more players sticking around on the perimeter shooting 3s. The meta-game of NBA basketball has shifted to the point where barring very specific matchups, Patterson cannot possibly play the 3 effectively enough.

 

you can get away with it under very limited circumstances, but it's not something you plan on doing. At the 3 you're taking away his strengths, and making him a weaker player. Very much like chuck at the 5, but playing style usually changes less from 4 to 5 than from 4 to 3.

 

I was about to write this myself. I could see a contending team like Chicago make a decent offer to Hayes. As a Rockets assistant, Thibs loved Hayes, and while Chuck won't help the Bulls' problems on offense, he would definitely make their D even tougher.

 

Patterson is a great guy to have to matchup with other teams if they go big. Because he can guard that big 3 and he does play excellent team defense. Minutes for Patterson as a big 3 makes sense. This won't sound like it makes a lot of sense, but PPat is a 4 that can play the 3, but is not a 3/4 tweener.

 

I don't know, but Patsquatch is the worst nickname for Patterson I have ever heard.

 

Okay, so first I want to clear up a misconception. Patrick at no point in his career at UK played the 3. He played as a PF his junior year, but he was moved to be a spread 4 in Cal's offense. It did lead to improved ball handling and shooting depth, but never was he slotted as the SF.

Before that he was strictly an inside guy... since he was the only talented big that could produce inside for the most part.

There were times when he may have guarded a SF in a game defensively his junior year, but that was uncommon. He and Miller typically took the 4 and 3 respectively.

Now, do I think Patrick could learn to be a serviceable defender against SF... absolutely... do I think that's using him to his best abilities... no way.

Look I love the idea of a Chuck/Pat/Enes line up as much (or likely more) than the next person but it's just not the best use of Pat's talent.

Now I need to read the rest of the thread

 

I think a lot of people are forgetting just how quick Patterson is. He is leaps and bounds quicker than landry was, he just has yet to harness it into a smooth post move. His movement's are jerky, and it looks like most of his moves are pre-mediated.

With that being said, If he focuses on defense, he can become a stellar defender. Just needs to practice angles that make his height more of a factor instead of his quickness on defense. Think Tayshaun Prince.

 

Too many people, including myself, have said that. But after watching him for several years now, I told myself never to underestimate the Chuckwagon ever again. Even Adelman admitted that he found out a bit too late that he should have played Hayes more.

 

is that 4-step dunk?

 

And what? We would have missed the playoffs by 1 game instead of 3? We would have made the 8th seed and lost to the Spurs?

The problem is Chuck is viewed in a vacuum. He has either been doing what he is meant to do, backing up an all-star center, and performing admirably, working hard, hustling, etc...

Or, beating out Jordan Hill and Brad Miller's of the world, and still doing it with his usual gusto.

So when Rick says he should have played Chuck more, I don't disagree... but that's not saying much.

Overpaying for Chuck Hayes' services would be a mistake. He is what he is.

That doesn't mean I don't like him. Love the little guy. But if he's relied on for anything other than 7th or 8th man minutes for the next 3-5 years, then the Rockets likely aren't very good.